While this comes to no surprise to anyone here, because Bill is indeed a rapist, it is a very compelling argument to make towards people believing the Clintons are decent human beings. This is because, Info Wars has a very large audience and thus if Bill was innocent, he could easily sue Alex Jones for millions, have the mainstream media push the lawsuit front and center, and LITERALLY cause Info Wars to be shut down overnight.
To illustrate this further, the popular YouTuber Mark Dice got his name quickly removed the from The Guardian's article outlining him as part of the "Alt-Right", by threatening to sue them for defamation: https://youtu.be/TOb81oGidj0?t=4m33s. So it is clear that even a large-scale news outlet would cave to a YouTuber.
Thus this alone is a strong argument to make that Bill Clinton is indeed a rapist, without even needing to deal with any of the specifics. Another reason might just be that the Clintons know they will be digging up an early grave if they personally go after Alex Jones, as he alluded to in his Reddit AMA yesterday (https://youtu.be/K33Ee9m5xlw?t=7s)) in which he alluded to having "1000 times worse" material he hasn't exposed yet...
Let me know what you think!
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
This is a terrible argument. The libel bar for public officials, especially a president is very, very high. To point where it's not worth it to sue.
Secondly, Jones could very well say it's his opinion, and opinions are protected speech.
And given that Jones holds many, many opinions that no sane person shares, the court could rule that no defamation occurred because no reasonable person would believe the opinion of Alex Jones matters.
Mrs_Ogynist01 ago
Wrong. First Lady Melania Trump just sued (& won) a libel case against a blogger for calling her a prostitute.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/melania-trump-settles-lawsuit-against-9774769.amp
He doesn't sue because he's a rapist.
AreWeSure ago
She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial. They settled. The blogger tried to get the case dismissed on 1st amendment grounds and the judge said, the case could go forward. Then they reached a settlement of an undetermined amount and he retracted and apologized. However, Tarpley.net is still publishing. This suit certainly didn't "shut down" this website overnight.
Since we don't know what the amount of the settlement is, it could have been less than what his lawyer costs would have been to fight the suit. As noted above Jones would have more resources to fight a suit and would love the publicity of it.
The question for the blogger becomes is it worth it to me to spend $200,000 in legal fees to "win" my case? Is it worth it to risk losing?
Trump once sued the author of a book for $5 billion dollars because the author wrote he was not a billionaire. The book was published by Warner Books, so they had to resources to fight the case all the way down the line. It took three years. The case was dismissed and then Trump appealed, Trump finally lost the case, because he wouldn't comply with the discovery requests and kept trying to draw out the process. So this blogger understood he could fighting this for years.
DarkMath ago
"She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial."
Melania Trump sued the blogger. A short time later he retracted and apologized. But that's not technically "winning". Epic.
Of course technically you're correct AreWeSure. But that's not the issue here. The issue is you are so dogmatically precise about some things but not others.
Where's your dogmatic precision in labeling Laura Silsby a child trafficker after she was, duh, convicted in Haiti of child trafficking?
Technically Laura Silsby is a child trafficker. Hillary intervened and got her out of jail. Technically that means Hillary Clinton condones child trafficking.
Working to get a child trafficker out of jail is technically appalling is it not?